"Everything Bad" is a non-fiction book which I only heard about because of a TV interview (possibly Colbert Report) When I saw it in the bookstore I compulsively picked it up even though I rarely buy new books.
Well so I finished the book and I have to hand it to this guy, he makes a convincing argument. All the crap you hear from Andy Rooney types, and your parents when they see you playing video games...
this guy argues the opposite - that most of the stuff we like to do (watch TV, play video games, movies, surf the internet) does not "make us dumber" but rather has very positive effects on our intelligence. That every few years the TV narratives become more complex (from Hill Street Blues to the Sopranos & 24), and that young people more than ever are learning how to use new software and interfaces, and other seldom mentioned skills.
He uses the example of how most parents laugh at the fact that little Johnny is the only one in the family who knows how to program the VCR. He says theres a very good reason why! Well anyways, you're going to have to read the book. There's great ties into neuroscience in there, as well as the economic market Blah Blah Blah. He points out that the most successful games (World of Warcraft, Sims, etc ) actually are not all that "fun" when you examine people working 60 hours to collect minerals just to make their armor etc. (even games like GTA have very tedious goals that reward the player) People play video games due to built in reward systems in the human brain. Fascinating stuff!
And what a great gift to give to your most receptive parent! Especially if you're a kid like me who had to deal with parents bitching for every five minutes I tried to escape to the computer or Playstation. The old "its rotting your brains" lecture.
Now let's wait for everyone to read the book so we can begin debating. Talk about adventure games being a prime example! I learned to think in such wonderful ways thanks to Monkey Island and its puzzles and inventory logic!
Take that, Jack Thompson.
Yeah, this was actually presented on The Daily Show some 6 months ago. Seemed like an interesting read (well, almost every book that's presented on The Daily Show is that) and I'd really like to read it.
I don't think this is very new though, unless the book goes into the most extreme counter arguments of the old waste-your-time-rot-your-brain mindset. I think we young people can all agree that the stuff we do, albeit might seem wasteful and useless, actually has had a positive effect on us. I mean, I know people who basically learned the English language from playing computer games. And if I think about myself, I've learned enormously from games, be it in the field of history, language or even art. I would even argue that our skillsets are way larger than the skillsets of our parents. I can still chop wood, fill in my tax return, drive a car, write essays, but on top of that I'm able to program playlists on tv receivers, convert various media file formats, create advanced programs, and navigate, process and generate content much faster than the generation before me. With easier access to all information (web dictionaries, encyclopedias, tutorials, schooling), we receive loads more, prompting for example a new debate between traditional teacher-student learning and independent e-learning.
Studies have shown that kids nowadays need to process, filter and absorb much more information than their parents did when they were young, resulting in a wider database of information, but less memory to recall that information. So we end up knowing a little about everything. There have also been a lot of studies supporting positive aspects in games and entertainment, for example the correlation of FPS games to the processing speed of shapes seen with the eye and reaction speed, and the adaptation speed to various technical interfaces.
Quote from: evenwolf on Thu 02/11/2006 20:26:27
He points out that the most successful games (World of Warcraft, Sims, etc ) actually are not all that "fun" when you examine people working 60 hours to collect minerals just to make their armor etc.Ã, (even games like GTA have very tedious goals that reward the player)Ã, People play video games due to built in reward systems in the human brain.
Sadly, I can never get into those kinds of games. Does that mean my brain is rotting?
I think it means you like games that are fun, not games that make you feel superior.
Great book, Evenwolf! One of my favourites!
One part of the book I found most fascinating and mind-blowing was where he makes a convincing case showing how reality TV shows and Pokemon are proof that our society is becoming smarter. Sure, we regard it as crap, but the crap has gotten smarter compared to similar shows from the 50s. In other words, the crap has gotten more complex.
Also, check out the author's blog: http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/
QuoteStudies have shown that kids nowadays need to process, filter and absorb much more information than their parents did when they were young, resulting in a wider database of information, but less memory to recall that information. So we end up knowing a little about everything. There have also been a lot of studies supporting positive aspects in games and entertainment, for example the correlation of FPS games to the processing speed of shapes seen with the eye and reaction speed, and the adaptation speed to various technical interfaces.
One of the thing the book discusses is that it's not the information as such, but the mechanisms used to present the information and engage the reader.
For example, books used to be the main textual medium. But now people are engaging with the internet because the way it presents information (Johnson uses intertextuality, such as hyperlinking, as an example) is more engaging.
Like Evenwolf said, he also compares the narratives of TV Shows over the last few decades and demonstrates how TV plots have become more complex. Take a show with a single narrative, such as Dragnet, and look at the evolution to Starsky and Hutch to Hill Street Blues to something with several narratives happening at once, like The Sopranos or 24.
ildu: the argument certainly isn't new but look at how many critics argue that mass entertainment is heading for an all-time low. Johnson argues that so far - mass entertainment has been becoming more and more intelligent with each passing decade. And what's incredible is not the claim that he's making but the rhetoric and the basis in science he uses to prove his point.
One passage that I found extremely insightful was the evolution of mainstream TV. In the seventies, Johnson argues, TV execs pushed for shows that were the Least Objectionable to the most people. Shows like Laverne and Shirley, the Brady Bunch, and Mork and Mindy were big hits with mass audiences. These shows were extremely simple and never pushed the limits as far as morality or indecency or gore.....
Today's popular shows COMPETE with the most complexity, violence, etc. They have to push the envelope with more and more to gain their market. And Johnson argues that these shows do not attempt Least Objectionable content but rather Most Repeatable content (Sopranos, 24 etc.). Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo, or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.
Without going into much detail (for fear of garbling Johnson's argument) I think this makes TONS of sense for any sign of moral decay or "dumbing down" of television. It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then. Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore: a certain kind of intelligence. Audiences could not rewind or read those websites etc. Today's mass audiences yearn for layered stories that utilize multi-threading narratives due to the technolgy that has grown alongside us. His best example of this was Seinfeld and its tendency to refer back to previous scenes or episodes.
DG: you're my kind of guy. Thanks for pointing out that even the crap is better. That's a really important point in the book. Oh! I love Johnson's scenario of "imagine a world where video games had been invented before books." Johnson writes his own critique of books and their disadvantages to video games for kids' spatial intelligence etc.
Great stuff!
I don't totally wholly disagree with what you're saying, but I must dispute a few things.
Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 03/11/2006 18:12:21
Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo,Ã, Ã, or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.
I watched the first series of 24 without rewinding, or reading fan-sites. I also followed the story without remaining clinging to the TV (that is to say, I spent a good few minutes making fun of Jack's whispery voice during each episode). More significantly, Twin Peaks gave us a layered, fractured narrative in very much the same way, before fan websites, DVDs and Tivo.
Quote
It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then.Ã, Ã, Ã, Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore:Ã, a certain kind of intelligence.Ã, Ã,Â
I can think of a number of violent, 'scandalous' and complex films from the 1970s, perhaps fewer TV programmes. I won't dispute the notion that a modern viewer is more attuned to fast, dynamic editing and fractured narrative structure, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, nor do I think it's been driven primarily by technology.
I disagree entirely with the premise that TV is getting smarter.
Take a look at any recent programme about science. It presents what meagre facts it contains in as flashy a way as possible to avoid "losing the audience", and recaps over and over as if you didn't get it the first time. I watched an episode of Stan Lee's "reality" show recently. Recap, recap, recap.
As for people getting smarter, just go downtown on a Saturday afternoon and listen to a few conversations (or mobile phone half-conversations). Or don't - it'll depress you.
Filling people's brains with a ton of buzzwords they barely understand and half-truths is hardly improving their intellect, nor does showing them increasing amounts of violence and garish, offensive behavior. How can the Sopranos possibly be argued successfully to improve the human intellect? Looks like the snake oil salesmen are back in town, Sheriff!
Yeah, I'm not gonna get on the tv-is-smarter-makes-smarter bandwagon just yet. I think the complexity and uniqueness of television broadcasting is a result of competition and the greater importance of the tv in our lives. In the 50-60's people would gather around the tv for an hour a day to watch simplistic broadcasting, because it was novel as well as standard. But nowadays people live through television to a larger degree, and they demand more complexity. And as the demand is greater, so is the supply with the many channels and shows to choose from, which really laments the producers to make broadcasting more and more 'cutting edge', to not, god forbid, let the viewer get bored.
CSI may be more complex than I Love Lucy in context, but it doesn't mean people who are watching are any smarter.
Regarding my earlier post, I was agreeing more with the notion that kids' lives are becoming more complex than those of earlier generations, and they have a need to adapt to the new world order. Sorry, if I sound a bit washed out. It seems that I only respond to these threads when it's nighttime and I'm tired.
I taught school for several years.Ã, Trust me- this book get it wrong.Ã, TV is not making anyone smarter.Ã, I worry about the world- Are we going to produce the great scientists, humanists, thinkers, economists, writers, etc. if weÃ, buy into this harmful nonsense.Ã, Ã, :(
People like to blame things on others.
Makes ya think.
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/AmericanSplendor09-1-24.jpg) (http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/AmericanSplendor09-1-24.jpg)
I refuse to read that, jet, seeing as comic books cause brain rot and delinquency.
Actually the words are too small.
Drag and drop into the url bar foo'!
I've never doubted that computers makes you more intelligent, it's more the cultural competence I'm afraid people are missing out. Reading books and magazines, historical, cultural or fictional, adds a dimension to your mind that soap operas or shoot 'em ups probably don't.
Learning stuff and developing takes a certain amount of effort, whereas the passtime of too many people, especially young people, tends to be rather effortless, in the direction of the vegetable.
I just know that when I read great novels, I get a particular kind of inspiration that is more or less vital for my survival. I become encouraged, provoked, to think, instead of just catered for my immediate desire to make the time go faster. I sincerely believe, with the risk of sounding like your fathers, that reading good literature and taking long walks will make experience a magic flow inside of you that can't be compared to 24/7 playing of WoW.
I completely agree with Andail and I would have completely agreed with him 10 years ago.
First of all, I think a lot of people are disagreeing without considering what's really being discussed here. I'll get to my reply to certain individuals in a moment, but first....
Everyone, see Johnson on The Daily Show: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15541
And see him discuss his new book The Ghost Map:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8shnNEXb4
Quote from: Ali on Sat 04/11/2006 16:30:48
I don't totally wholly disagree with what you're saying, but I must dispute a few things.
Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 03/11/2006 18:12:21
Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo, or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.
I watched the first series of 24 without rewinding, or reading fan-sites. I also followed the story without remaining clinging to the TV (that is to say, I spent a good few minutes making fun of Jack's whispery voice during each episode). More significantly, Twin Peaks gave us a layered, fractured narrative in very much the same way, before fan websites, DVDs and Tivo.
But this only just highlights the evolution of how TV has become more complex. 24 is pretty much a higher step in complex narrative from Twin Peaks, especially since you now have a "real-time" element. What Evenwolf (and Johnson) is saying is that now we live in a world of greater interactivity and intertextuality. The Internet functions adjunct to current multi-narrative stories. It's an extension of the evolution of all our popular culture.
As another example, consider also that there is now a 24 video game.
QuoteQuote
It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then. Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore: a certain kind of intelligence.
I can think of a number of violent, 'scandalous' and complex films from the 1970s, perhaps fewer TV programmes. I won't dispute the notion that a modern viewer is more attuned to fast, dynamic editing and fractured narrative structure, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, nor do I think it's been driven primarily by technology.
Whether or not it's a good thing is not what's being argued here. As Johnsons says in the book, it is not his position to debate the morality of such culture. What is being argued is that the technological aspects and progression of narrative has made us smarter.
A case in point that Johnson makes in regards to reality TV is that now you have people voting via mobile phones and the internet on who stays and who leaves. You also have internet forums devoted to such shows where fans can discuss the social dynamics/contestant technique/etc of such shows.
Likewise, compare the best films of the 70s (and I'm a big afficianado of films from the 70s, mind you -- Taxi Driver, The French Connection, The Godfather 1 and 2, etc) to the best films of today: Pulp Fiction , Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memento, The Usual Suspects, Lord of the Rings, Fight Club, etc. The way of telling such stories has become more complex.
Johnson also backs up his findings with empirical evidence too.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sat 04/11/2006 17:43:55
I disagree entirely with the premise that TV is getting smarter.
Take a look at any recent programme about science. It presents what meagre facts it contains in as flashy a way as possible to avoid "losing the audience", and recaps over and over as if you didn't get it the first time. I watched an episode of Stan Lee's "reality" show recently. Recap, recap, recap.
But compare this to the type of documentary about science from the 50s.
Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeqIY1Venfk
It basically presents the same meagre facts using the best engagement techniques of the 50s.
But also, today we have shows that act as an intertext to this. Take, for example, the Look Around You series, which acts as a parody of educational documentaries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqYBncyKpM
Parody is a type of intertext that Johnson talks about. It references not just the facts but the style of educational documentaries. And we understand this because we can make connections between such media.
No one would have even dreamed of making shows like this in 50s.
it's kind of like how The Daily Show's "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" parodies civics textbooks.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 04/11/2006 21:18:02
Filling people's brains with a ton of buzzwords they barely understand and half-truths is hardly improving their intellect, nor does showing them increasing amounts of violence and garish, offensive behavior. How can the Sopranos possibly be argued successfully to improve the human intellect? Looks like the snake oil salesmen are back in town, Sheriff!
First of all, Johnson isn't a snake oil salesman and his books don't read like they were written by a crazy old man in a bar. He is a major science writer and a Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University.
Second: I'm not too sure how "cognitive" and "mass communication" constitute buzzwords. My University professors all used the same words that Johnson used, so maybe they're snake oil salespeople as well. Better watch out, they might try and con you into buying the Brooklyn Bridge!
Third: the violence and offensive behaviour is more to do with the morality of such media, not the capability to enhance cognitive ability.
As for the Sopranos, consider all the connections people have to make to watch the show. 1) The way it uses several narratives that weave in between each other, 2) the way it calls back to information from previous episodes, 3) The way it incorporates psychology, 4) the way it makes references to external media, like numerous gangster films, 5) Consider also, how people can reference the show, such as the intro being parodied in Harvey Birdman and The Simpson.
In other words, people need enhanced cognitive ability to process the shows more so than people of 50 years ago. Try getting your 65 year old grandpa to follow what's happening in The Sopranos. I guaran-fucking-tee you he'll prefer Matlock.
For more information, consult the Intertestuality section of The Sopranos article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopranos#Intertextuality
Quote from: ildu on Sat 04/11/2006 22:29:29
Yeah, I'm not gonna get on the tv-is-smarter-makes-smarter bandwagon just yet. I think the complexity and uniqueness of television broadcasting is a result of competition and the greater importance of the tv in our lives. In the 50-60's people would gather around the tv for an hour a day to watch simplistic broadcasting, because it was novel as well as standard. But nowadays people live through television to a larger degree, and they demand more complexity.
Why do people demand more complexity?
Johnson says because their cognitive functions are more enhanced.
Quote from: FieryPhoenix on Sat 04/11/2006 23:49:35
I taught school for several years. Trust me- this book get it wrong. TV is not making anyone smarter. I worry about the world- Are we going to produce the great scientists, humanists, thinkers, economists, writers, etc. if we buy into this harmful nonsense. :(
How can I trust you with you opinion when you've got NOTHING to demonstrate why the book has got it wrong?
But you want to talk great writers of today influenced by popular culture? Consider my friend B. Thompson Stroud (http://progressiveboink.com/archive/bbasicarchive.html), who is my favourite writer on the Internet. He has also written a book entitled Seven Hill City (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0595278507/qid=1053747209/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-2579705-4426241?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). He grew up on a steady diet of professional wrestling, baseball, and TV. A lot of this culture has influenced his works in major ways, especially the impact of professional wrestling on his book. Also, take a look at the online comic he co-writes, The Dugout (http://progressiveboink.com/dugout/), which is based upon his knowledge of baseball.
He is a great writer influenced by popular culture.
Consider Quentin Tarantino, writer and director of Pulp Fiction, who basically attributes the video store he used to work at as his film education.
Consider Jon Stewart, Emmy and Peabody-winning writer and presenter of The Daily Show, who uses a lot of pop cultural references to mock the politics of the day.
Consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do the same thing.
Consider the creators of The Simpsons.
Consider Sasha Baron Cohen.
Quote from: Andail on Sun 05/11/2006 11:41:01
I just know that when I read great novels, I get a particular kind of inspiration that is more or less vital for my survival. I become encouraged, provoked, to think, instead of just catered for my immediate desire to make the time go faster.
But what you've described is pretty much what reality TV's voting system encourages people to do. It encourages them to think upon what they've seen and provoke them to make a decision. It's pretty much the same as you using the internet -- there are complex cognitive functions happening that force you to make decisions when you surf the net.
Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.
http://www.ryman-novel.com/
Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.
---------------
I'd like to point out to everyone that Johnson doesn't disqualify novels and media from our past -- such has their benefits. But what he is saying is that there is a negative association (TV and video games are making us dumber) with today's popular culture that is false.
And, for a good defense against the moral arguments against our popular culture, see this video of a debate between Bernie Goldberg and Jon Stewart:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/13/3541
Best quote:
QuoteBernard Goldberg: Once upon a time... a drunk in a bar wouldn't use the F-word. Now... Chevy Chase goes to the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, at a gala where people are wearing gowns and tuxedoes, and calls the president of the United States a dumb-blank.
John Stewart: And once upon a time, Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves. I guess what I'm saying is yes, Chevy Chase used a bad word on TV .... but segregation no longer exists, slavery is gone. That's REAL culture and REAL vulgarity. This is just words.
I've also said time and time again that I reckon the violence on TV, video games, films is merely a reflection of society. Compare this to films and TV of several decades ago where apparently violence didn't exist much and black people and white people got along together in harmony during the 30s. Also, according to films of the 30s, slavery and the subjugation of black people was a good thing.
I mean, are people going to condemn a violent film like Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing on purely moral objections to "violence in films" when it presents a fairly accurate representation of tense race relations?
The problem is that our nostolgia for the past clouds our eyes to what's happening now. While I don't think we should disqualify past culture, I think we can't condemn present popular culture on purely moral grounds. And while I can't say that all our culture is perfect, I do think it has become more honest and more advanced than several years ago.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/11/2006 13:55:21
Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.
http://www.ryman-novel.com/
Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.
Literature of the past? I meant contemporary literature as well. As long as it's "good" :)
Also, sure, that hyper-text novel seems nifty and all. But seriously, is that a modern-day, mainstream media among people of today? I'm not against new media, I'm against young people wasting away watching and reading popcorn pulp shit crap. If people can find alternatives to reading books, then be my guest. But that link of yours seems a tad far-fetched imho.
Comic books. They have words and pictures; you can do everything with words and pictures.
Quote from: Andail on Sun 05/11/2006 15:26:17
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/11/2006 13:55:21
Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.
http://www.ryman-novel.com/
Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.
Literature of the past? I meant contemporary literature as well. As long as it's "good" :)
Also, sure, that hyper-text novel seems nifty and all. But seriously, is that a modern-day, mainstream media among people of today? I'm not against new media, I'm against young people wasting away watching and reading popcorn pulp shit crap. If people can find alternatives to reading books, then be my guest. But that link of yours seems a tad far-fetched imho.
But the case could be made that people 50 years ago had their own popcorn pulpy shit and that the popcorn pulp shit had actually gotten smarter over the last 50 years.
As for hyper-text novels, no, there aren't that many hypertext novels. But consider how hypertext has transformed textual mediums. I now read most of my information online. I haven't disqualified books, mind you, because I still think there is value in literature. But my point was that our future seems to be evolving more to hypertext mediums.
As another example, consider how news blogs are becoming more popular and how newspaper readerships are in decline.
So, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say the medium is changing to something more complex and smarter.
DG: careful with the argument that film has become complex. Sure there are the exceptions: the occassional mind bender like Memento. But overall Johnson stated that the medium has plateaued long ago.
EVERYONE ELSE:
What your arguments come down to, whether you are saying TV is not making anyone smarter, or that books are much better for intellectual stimulation..... is that all in alll- you refuse to read A BOOK!
Please check out Johnson's book in a library and follow it from beginning to end. I cannot adequately describe the "Sleeper Curve" which is the basic backbone to his argument.
You are stating well thought out opinions and facts, but you have not allowed the author to flesh out his case with details, evidence, and rhetoric. Try out the book and then come back and argue the examples he uses. Not the generalities you'd rather make. Is it because you are too busy with TV, video games, and internet forums that you can't read a book? Or is your suggested reading list all ready too long?
We can all agree that the argument is worth discussing. It's certainly worth a read.
Nah.
I'm so convinced the premise is nonsense that I'm not going to encourage him by buying or borrowing his book.
I'll get back to "The Areas of my Expertise" instead. That'll make me smarter.
DG,
Hypertext novel? That's old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain
It's so odd that you should say that. The area of my expertise happens to be film/television.
Quote from: evenwolf on Mon 06/11/2006 17:16:54
DG: careful with the argument that film has become complex. Sure there are the exceptions: the occassional mind bender like Memento. But overall Johnson stated that the medium has plateaued long ago.
Good point. I do reckon TV shows have become more complex than movies these days. I prefer watching shows like Huff or Arrested Development or The Office to 99% of what's at the cinema these days. In fact, it's very rarely I go to the movies or buy film DVDs. I'm more likely to buy a whole season of a quality TV show.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Tue 07/11/2006 00:25:09
DG,
Hypertext novel? That's old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain
It's interesting that you bring this up because Johnson uses the example of how he created pen-and-paper fantasy baseball games when he was a kid. Now there are programs that enable you to compile such statistics in an easier way. Likewise with the evolution from roleplaying/choose-your-own-adventure gamebooks to online hypertext novels like Ryman's work.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/11/2006 13:55:21
In other words, people need enhanced cognitive ability to process the shows more so than people of 50 years ago. Try getting your 65 year old grandpa to follow what's happening in The Sopranos. I guaran-fucking-tee you he'll prefer Matlock.
If the ability to follow a complex, fractured narrative has brought with it impatience and a diminished attention span then I don't think it should be considered an enchancement, particularly is thoughtless acceptance is riding alongside. The question should not be whether my Grandpa likes the Sopranos. We ought to be asking if our grandchildren will be prepared to watch The Big Combo or The Maltese Falcon. If their attunement to fast-paced mutli-threaded narratives blinds them to the value of a measured, atmospheric story then it will be a terrific shame.
I was sloppy to use the word 'good' in my earlier post. I should have said 'progressive'. I dispute the notion that the format of modern popular culture represents a significant progression.
Quote from: Ali on Wed 08/11/2006 16:20:35
If the ability to follow a complex, fractured narrative has brought with it impatience and a diminished attention span then I don't think it should be considered an enchancement, particularly is thoughtless acceptance is riding alongside. The question should not be whether my Grandpa likes the Sopranos. We ought to be asking if our grandchildren will be prepared to watch The Big Combo or The Maltese Falcon. If their attunement to fast-paced mutli-threaded narratives blinds them to the value of a measured, atmospheric story then it will be a terrific shame.
You're missing Johnson's point. He's not out to say that this culture is supposed to replace past culture. He's saying that there's proof that such culture doesn't "rot the brains" like so many critics of TV would have you believe.
But following the logic of your post, are you saying that The Maltese Falcon has an atmospheric story and something like say The Sopranos or 24 doesn't? If you really do think this, I'll lend you my shovel so you can dig your head out of the ground.
I mean, you seem to think that a multi-track narrative sacrifices good plotting. It doesn't. You can have both, and shows like The Sopranos, 24, Six Feet Under, Lost, Arrested Development, The Office (both UK and US versions), The West Wing, Weeds, Scrubs, Deadwood, etc, etc are proof of this.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 09/11/2006 01:50:45
But following the logic of your post, are you saying that The Maltese Falcon has an atmospheric story and something like say The Sopranos or 24 doesn't? If you really do think this, I'll lend you my shovel so you can dig your head out of the ground.
I agree that both 24 and the Maltese Falcon are atmospheric. The former establishes an atmosphere with an frenetic and intense interweaving of images and narratives, the latter with an understated lugubrious pace. You're right that for multi-track narratives to work they don't sacrifice good plotting, they demand good plotting.
Frenetic pacing, fractured storytelling and layered narratives can be very effective, as in the examples you gave. They are not, in and of themselves, the marks of intelligent and effective drama. They can also be observed in the best and the worst modern films and the most and least imaginative television.
I'm not arguing that we've lost anything since the Maltese Falcon, I'm simply not convinced that we've enhanced our cognitive abilities. I don't believe that MTV or xXx are making people cleverer simply because they are fractured, frenetic and follow multiple threads.
Quote from: Ali on Sat 11/11/2006 10:39:52
Frenetic pacing, fractured storytelling and layered narratives can be very effective, as in the examples you gave. They are not, in and of themselves, the marks of intelligent and effective drama. They can also be observed in the best and the worst modern films and the most and least imaginative television.
I'm not arguing that we've lost anything since the Maltese Falcon, I'm simply not convinced that we've enhanced our cognitive abilities. I don't believe that MTV or xXx are making people cleverer simply because they are fractured, frenetic and follow multiple threads.
In a way, they are. Compare 50 years ago to MTV's equivalent, which is something like American Bandstand, which seems very simplistic to watch these days.
You see, it's not the multi-track threads of a narrative themselves that increase cognitive functions. That much is certain. But more so it's how our brains process these narratives.
So you have all these multiple tracks in MTV happening at once and our brains piece them together. Where as something like Bandstand takes lesser effort to process.
I admit, MTV and xXx are crap. But compared to equivalents of the 50s, I'd say they take more brain power to process.
And keep in mind, Johnson devotes a section to empirical research.
By comparing the machine-gun pace and disjonted themes of The Goon Show with the langurous pace and domestic scope of Everybody Loves Raymond, I could make the case that media output is becoming easier to follow.
Of course, The Goon Show is exceptional. It doubt it represents the majority of 1940/50s radio comedy, but it still makes it difficult to establish a trend from the simple towards the complex in the last half decade.
More significantly, I'm doubtful of this notion of MTV taking more brainpower to process. I'll agree that it takes a degree of mental agility to follow MTV, but I'd question to what degree MTV viewers actually process information.
I suggest that the capacity to patiently dwell upon and consider a subject should be considered a valuable skill, after a fashion.
I think it would be a mistake to celebrate the exchange of this skill for the mental agility of MTV viewers. If there is a trend towards the complex in the mass media, it does not necessarily represent progress, nor an increase in the sophistication of our minds.
Quote from: Ali on Sat 11/11/2006 16:44:44
By comparing the machine-gun pace and disjonted themes of The Goon Show with the langurous pace and domestic scope of Everybody Loves Raymond, I could make the case that media output is becoming easier to follow.
I don't think that's a fair comparison, though. Everybody Loves Raymond isn't a sketch orientated show, it's a sitcom. Compare The Goon Show to something along the lines of Mr Show with David Cross and Bob Odenkirk. Or The Daily Show. Or Wonder Showzen.
Meanwhile, Everybody Loves Raymond is a pretty mid-level sitcom. The producers have even admitted it's very much in the style of an old fashioned sitcom. Look at something a little more advanced like, say, The Office (UK or US versions), Arrested Development, Curb our Enthusiasm or Entourage.
Even Seinfeld, although cancelled, represents an advanced form of sitcom.
QuoteOf course, The Goon Show is exceptional. It doubt it represents the majority of 1940/50s radio comedy, but it still makes it difficult to establish a trend from the simple towards the complex in the last half decade.
Sure, it's exceptional comedy. But I think the complexity has been outclassed by similar sketch-style shows. See examples above.
As for which is funnier, it's subjective. I prefer David Cross and Bob Odenkirk or John Stewart to the Goons. But that's a personal preference. You might think otherwise.
QuoteMore significantly, I'm doubtful of this notion of MTV taking more brainpower to process. I'll agree that it takes a degree of mental agility to follow MTV, but I'd question to what degree MTV viewers actually process information.
I'm talking in comparison to American bandstand in the 50s. The degree is significant.
QuoteI suggest that the capacity to patiently dwell upon and consider a subject should be considered a valuable skill, after a fashion.
I think it would be a mistake to celebrate the exchange of this skill for the mental agility of MTV viewers. If there is a trend towards the complex in the mass media, it does not necessarily represent progress, nor an increase in the sophistication of our minds.
I disagree. I believe the comprehension of such complex and evolving culture is a testament to the development of our minds. Consider Johnson's example where he gives evidence of the average test scores increasing over generations. Now I'll state that you can't attribute these test scores just to TV shows -- that would be madness. However, they ARE attributable to the complexity of our culture as a whole. This includes all media, such as (and not limited to) TV, films, the internet, and computer games.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 11/11/2006 17:07:01Consider Johnson's example where he gives evidence of the average test scores increasing over generations.
Not having read the book, I don't know what Johnson's methodology is, but rising test scores hardly proves anything. I suspect grade inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation) would be the biggest explanation for rising test scores, unless he somehow managed to account for this. Take the American SAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#History_and_name_changes), which for those who don't know, are standardized tests commonly used as a part of the college admissions process. They've always curved their grading to offset declining scores, and completely re-standardized the grading scale in 1995 to give higher results.
And of course, using test results to make claims about intelligence begs the question of whether or not tests can even accurately measure intelligence (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessment#Controversy) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_%28student_assessment%29#Limitations_of_testing_and_associated_issues)). Even defining intelligence is tricky business. What exactly do we mean when we claim that people are more intelligent?
Certainly the explosion of IT has made available an unprecedented wealth of information available to just about everyone, and of course there's always the joke about getting the youngest kid in the family to get the home entertainment center and computer working, and then there's the example of today's teen listening to music, watching tv, surfing the web, and carrying on IM conversations all at the same time. But just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.
I don't think there's anything remarkable about claiming that the average bloke adapts to whatever "tech level" they grow up in. Sure we can program our cell phones, navigate complex mass-transit systems, and easily look up movie showtimes on the internet. But does that mean we're any smarter? Look at all the comic skits about people being able to sing various commercial jingles but not knowing the words to the national anthem, or not being able to point out their state (or country) on a map (or a popular variation in America where people can't point out Iraq). Or drop somebody in a radically unfamiliar environment - put a city slicker on the farm, or since we're making comparisons with the past, put today's teen in the 50's or early 20th century - and I don't know that you'd see any greater capacity to adapt or outperform someone native to that environment.
I definitely think the resources that are available for people to educate themselves - whether we're talking TV and film, the internet, or video games - are greater than they ever have been. But it still requires an active effort to take advantage of them. I think that somebody that just passively exists in their environment - watching prime-time television, playing the video game of the month, catching the latest Hollywood "blockbuster" - doesn't necessarily benefit from any increased complexity or intelligence in the content they take in. One would only expect that, as a human race, our "base" level of knowledge and understanding of the world has grown. But taking into account that baseline, I'd be hard pressed to argue that our mainstream media is any less derivative or mind-numbing than it has been in previous generations - and perhaps even moreso.
EagerMind, it's interesting that you mention all that because Johnson also takes into account most of what you talking about especially the question of whether test scores can actually measure intelligence. What Johnson says, however, is that studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.
He also states there are some intelligences ignored by these tests, such as emotional intelligence. However, studies have shown a general advancement in the areas I meantioned above.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 12/11/2006 03:28:49
What Johnson says, however, is that studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.
I won't argue that we've advanced in these areas. You acknowledge that there are areas of the mental process that these studies haven't engaged with.
I'm not aware of such a thing as a savoir-faire test, nor do I have people's attention spans on record for the last century. Forgive me if Johnson deals with this issue, but without assessing these areas surely it is impossible to identify progress overall rather than isolated change.
Granted, I agree an in-depth assessment of our advanced cognitive abilities can provide a clearer picture on this issue. I'm all for more data on this topic as much as anyone interested in this topic is. But I do side with Johnson on this one. He linked the empircal evidence extremely well to his thesis. And I was pretty skepitcal prior to purchasing the book. In the end he convinced me.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 12/11/2006 03:28:49studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.
The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?
But as I pointed out in my earlier post, I remain skeptical that mainstream media has gotten any smarter, or even that we as humans have gotten more intelligent. I think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 14/11/2006 19:07:46
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 12/11/2006 03:28:49studies have shown that average results for problem-solving skills, abstract reasoning, pattern recognition and spaital logic have all increased.
The other side of this is that, even if you can show a correlation between more intelligent television (and I don't know how, or if, Johnson makes a quantitative assessment of this) and higher intelligence, that hardly goes to cause-and-effect. Are we getting smarter because of better television, or is television getting better because we're smarter?
You're going to hate my answer.
This is the same thing they posed about The Daily Show in many studies. Like, an Annenberg study from a year or two ago showed that people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels. This led to the question: is The Daily Show educating people better, or is The Daily Show just attracting a more educated audience.
Here's where you're going to hate me.
I did my honours thesis on this.
What did I discover? Well, I found 1) News satire had the same educational value and regular news, and more interestingly 2) there was a mutual relationship between News Satire and Regular News -- people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better and people who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news. Both work in tandem, fueling each other.
Why did I bring this up? Because I reckon the question you pose has a similar answer. I reckon we are getting smarter because of better television and, at the same time, television is getting better to keep up with our level of desired engagement.
QuoteI think the advance of technology-driven media provides unprecedented opportunities for people to educate themselves and develop themselves personally and professionally, but to take advantage of it I think you have to look outside the mainstream and actively pursue the useful content.
Not necessarily because if you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it. Consider, for example, news programs. News programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 15/11/2006 11:38:03people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.
I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.
QuoteNews satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better
Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.
Quotepeople who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.
I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show. :)
Quoteif you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.
See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:
1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!
2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.
3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).
QuoteNews programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.
Again, I disagree:
1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.
2. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think the perception that we're better able to process this "glut" of information is a huge fallacy. I hope you don't mind if I quote myself:
Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 11/11/2006 23:16:51... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.
Fundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen
isn't helping us!
Finally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult! :)
I think that the bottom line is that Games/Television aren't as bad for you as people think. Regardless of the complexity of television today, which I think has more to do with an increase in technology that allows more things to be filmed and edited faster than in previous years, as well as better word processors. Regardless of the discussion of whether tv is smarter or not, I do agree that it and video games aren't destructive. That said, too much of anything isn't good. You can't just watch tv all day and say your learning, if all you ever do it watch tv.
-MillsJROSS
Tell that to all the armchair historians out there educated by the History Channel! :=
That's exactly my point. I don't consider the History Channel to be mainstream, but it's a perfect example of the type of useful content that's out there if you look for it.
I think the growth of niche programming has been a huge boon to the consumer. It's a trend that I think will grow as broadband internet continues to spread and podcasting and internet television become more popular and accessible. Highly-specialized, low-budget content will be able to succeed with an audience of just a few thousand people.
Heck, even these forums - giving a voice to a scattered, niche community and allowing them to share and discuss ideas - is an example of what's possible, and I think perhaps an example of where we'll see more popular media begin to go.
I'm pretty sure Johnson would have added a whole new chapter to his book if he had ever played or seen someone playing Monkey Island...
But yeah, he talks about the culture of video games and the countless dialogues and tutorials spawned from common interest found all over the internet. Anyway, I'm glad people are debating. And it seems the talk has gotten a bit more sophisticated since last time I checked. :)
Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 15/11/2006 19:35:04
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 15/11/2006 11:38:03people who watched The Daily could recall more information about the 2004 US election that people who just watched regular cable news channels.
I don't find anything surprising about this result. People tend to remember stuff better if the person trying to remember it is engaged in the information. Think of the bottom-of-the-class student who can't remember any of the lessons but can ramble off years of sports stats with ease. I'd expect the Daily Show, which engages its audience with laughter - a very positive, memory-building stimulus - to be much more interesting and memory-enhancing than the regular news.
This is my point. 50 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show. It's the kind of show that requires a certain level of intertextuality between it and other shows/media. You have to understand these links before you understand The Daily Show. Hence, why a show like The Daily Show is benefitial.
QuoteQuoteNews satire had the same educational value as regular news, and ... people who watched regular news could understand News Satire better
Of course. Satire requires understanding of the subject being satirized.
Quotepeople who watch News Satire were encouraged to watch regular news.
I'll admit, this is surprising. I have no desire to watch the regular news after watching the Daily Show. :)
But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject. How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.
QuoteQuoteif you even look at the mainstream, it's become more complex yet people are able to follow it.
See, this is where I disagree. People point to the explosion of shows with long story arcs (Lost, 24, Alias, etc.) as proof of "growing complexity." But I disagree for several reasons:
1. Shows like this (endless, constantly-evolving story arcs) have existed for quite a long time, in the form of afternoon soap operas, prime-time soaps (anyone remember Dallas?), and arguably even professional wrestling (which is usually more about the story arcs than the wrestling, and frequently referred to as "soap opera for men"). And if you look at other media - comic books spring to mind, but also old radio serials and saturday matinee sci-fi serials at the movie theaters - this form of story-telling has existed for decades, and traditionally been directed at kids!
These are progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24. Also, look at a show like Arrested Development, which mocks such soap operas.
And also comic books have become more complex. Consider in the movie Big where the Tom Hanks character wants to create an interactive comic book.
And interactive comics are a little like... umm... what are those things called... they're like games that you can play on your computer... and they're like adventures... i forget the name but it's some kind of genre word... Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Quote2. I don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence. As DVD sales of television series has taken off, I think it's more likely a commitment to boost profits. I don't normally watch Lost, but I caught an episode recently. I thought it was interesting, and I was able to piece together some of characters' motivations, but ultimately I really didn't know what was going on. I don't think it means I'm dumb or that the show was unusually complex, I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.
But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago. Watch Arrested Development and spot how it ties into other shows and movies.
Quote3. I think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline. Lost may have a complex storyline stretching back to the beginning of the show, but what happens in each episode? The one I saw was relatively simplistic - a rescue mission, with a couple flashbacks to explain motivation. But look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order. Minimal tie-ins between each episode, yet individually each one raises questions about and debates issues of public policy, law, and ethics. West Wing obviously puts a liberal/Democratic spin on it, Law & Order generally makes a convincing arguement for both sides and usually doesn't provide any answers (leaving the viewer to form their own conclusions, or learn more about the issue themselves).
But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing. To understand the show, you do need some degree of understanding on how a) The American political system works, and b) current US political issues.
QuoteQuoteNews programs of the 50s usually involved a newscaster sitting behind a desk reading headlines. But now you're got split-screen interviews with talking heads, a scroll bar down the bottom, occasional pop-ups, and other fancy touches. It's become more advanced -- the level of required engagement has multiplied -- and yet we're still able to keep track of it all.
Again, I disagree:
1. Let's not confuse advance in technology with increased complexity. In the 50's, you didn't have live satellite feeds. Now you do. And cutting to a poor reporter standing in the middle of a hurricane or riding on a tank in the middle of a battlefield is much more compelling television than someone in a studio talking about the devastation. It's all about visual stimulus.
But that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.
Also, now people can send e-mail to such shows or even start their own blog about the issues. They're becoming participants to the culture, thus demonstrating how we're engaging with it.
Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 11/11/2006 23:16:51... just because we've become more accustomed to a greater decibel level of background information doesn't mean we've gotten any better at processing it. I've heard (although I don't have any numbers to support) that continuously jumping from one task to another degrades intelligence - and performance - since the mind isn't given the opportunity to ever focus on one thing. I've also read articles about using computer technology to filter out extraneous information to aircraft pilots and army soldiers so they can improve their focus and performance. Hardly evidence that we're able to better process an ever-growing complexity of information.
I don't this is a good example. The army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?
It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.
It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!
I'm not saying that people should get their complete education from TV, but I do feel that
people are able to foster better connections between things if they add popular culture to our diet.
QuoteFundamentally, we are still only able to process one subject at a time. When I'm reading the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I'm not focusing on what the announcer is saying, and vice-versa. There may be more information on the television screen, but I'm still only following one thread. Furthermore, our minds require a certain amount of dwell time to absorb a particular subject, comprehend it, and remember it. Jumping erratically from subject to subject doesn't improve our intelligence, but instead degrades it. In the end, maybe all that information on the screen isn't helping us!
I think you're limiting Johnson's argument to just TV. No. It applies to popular culture as a whole. The fact that we can understand how one thing links to another aids our ability to solve complex problems better.
QuoteFinally, let me just say that I think this is a really interesting discussion. I've come to learn that tone can be easily misinterpreted through the written word, so I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I don't want to see this discussion end in an unintentional flame war because of some falsely-perceived insult! :)
FUCK YOU PANSY
Do I really have to add a "just joking" to the end of that? ;)
Even if you do use the choppy editing as an example, and that viewers are growing more impatient...Ã, wouldn't you also have to make the argument that viewers were actually patient while watching Three's Company?Ã, Ã, Or Full House?
If viewers sat through entire episodes, even marathons, of those shows - wouldn't that prove that television audiences were at one point - retarded?Ã, Ã, :)
Now I will say that most shows have made trade-offs with their chop shop editing.Ã, Ã, Dialogue.Ã, Ã, Television writers don't have to worry about crafting the english langauge anymore.Ã, Its just one statement after the other, a couple a questions. and then someone gets shot.Ã, Ã, Ã, But I would argue that television is doing quite well compared to Theatre in this regard.Ã, Ã, I've given up on going to plays anymore after witnessing multiple shitty productions. MFA theater students write the worst plays from what I've seen. with monologues that are the stupidest drivel on the face of the earth. And that's when theater companies aren't reciting Shakespeare!Ã, Ã, That's as creative as theatre will ever get.Ã, Ã, People recycling the same plays over an dover again.Ã, "Oooh, we'll set Hamlet in an insurane brokers office!"
Now you can blame the fall of theater on the rise of television. But how productive is that? Next you'll want to petition a collective agreement to ban TV. But the dialogue has lost focus in TV and films.
Instead of crafty rhetoric and flowing prose, most shows drown the viewer in technical or legal jargon.Ã, Ã, I would even include X- Files.Ã, Ã, "Scully, the pyschosphere of his brain appears to be shattered.Ã, Maybe if I apply this benzine circusometer the wound will heal itself in the fourth dimension." Miami Vice tried this shit and failed! Michael Mann, and I still hate the movie!
oh, and it was brilliant when South Park called out Family Guy on the "Man, this is worse than that one time..."Ã, gag.Ã, Ã, More shows need good humor and good dialogue.Ã, Its a hard thing to accomplish.Ã, Ã, But I believe many shows are upping the ante even though they could take the "drown the audience in jargon or inside jokes" method.
Quote from: evenwolf on Fri 17/11/2006 09:03:21
Television writers don't have to worry about crafting the english langauge anymore. Its just one statement after the other, a couple a questions. and then someone gets shot.
I disagree and would say they care more than ever. One of the big challenges facing TV writers, and in fact most writers, is that due to shrinking time and space constraints they have to say as much as possible, be as expressive as possible using the least amount of words possible.
I think they're now more than ever making things tighter and more impactful. Granted, there are no long-running ultra-expressive stream of consciousness sentences you might find in, say, a Virgina Woolf novel (and I'm biased here and find Woolf painful to read) but I do think it's a challenge for TV writers to "cut the fat" as much as possible.
Shows like Arrested Development or The Sopranos are very tightly written, every line of dialogue contributing, advancing the story, and all lines tightly wounds together.
QuoteInstead of crafty rhetoric and flowing prose, most shows drown the viewer in technical or legal jargon. I would even include X- Files. "Scully, the pyschosphere of his brain appears to be shattered. Maybe if I apply this benzine circusometer the wound will heal itself in the fourth dimension." Miami Vice tried this shit and failed! Michael Mann, and I still hate the movie!
I do agree that "jargon" can sometimes hinder a TV show. Orwell in Politics and The English language says "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent." What I do like is that in some shows they do explain the idea behind the jargon. Star Trek was good at this (A Futurama episode even said that on Star Trek they'd solve problems with a complex jargon-filled explanation and then re-explain it with a simple metaphor -- "Like putting too much air into a balloon!").
Perhaps the jargon is to give the show a sense of realism. I can see why a show like House would use a lot of complex medical jargon. But I do think with a lot of these shows there is a degfree of understanding because I can understand what's going on in a show like House.
Quoteoh, and it was brilliant when South Park called out Family Guy on the "Man, this is worse than that one time..." gag. More shows need good humor and good dialogue. Its a hard thing to accomplish. But I believe many shows are upping the ante even though they could take the "drown the audience in jargon or inside jokes" method.
I'm at odds here because while I think South Park is very cutting-edge satire and funny in its own right, I still think Family Guy's writers are damn good at constructing a joke and telling it extremely well. Despite how they integrate them into the story, they can still give a rapidfire succession of good punchlines. How anyone can't adore Chris showing an abstract painting and saying, "It's partly an expression of my teenage angst... but mostly it's a moo-cow!" is beyond me.
It also doesn't try to be self-important, like South Park can be sometimes. Like Kyle says in the same episode: "At least [Family Guy] doesn't get all preachy and up its own ass with messages, you know?" And keep in mind, before South Park became deep social commentary, it was about aliens communicating with a satellite dish sticking out of Cartman's rectum.
I think MacFarlane said it best in his speech at the Harvard class day 2006, when speaking as Stewie Griffin:
"You're wondering to yourselves: what can I expect from the outside world? Will I find my niche? What should I know about the vast territory that lies beyond the confines of my little subculture of textbooks, Ramen noodles, coin-operated laundry and TV shows that seem to think they can skate by with random jokes about giant chickens that have absolutely nothing to do with the overall narrative? The boys at South Park are absolutely correct: Those cutaways and flashbacks have nothing to do with the story! They're just there to be ... funny. And that is a shallow indulgence that South Park is quite above, and for that I salute them."
Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).
Just because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.
If you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738
What bothers me the most is the plethora of tv-shows that american networks totally pour out over the world of television, all following the fools-proof moulds designed by huge teams of market analysts, promoters and professional material writers, which in the end makes every sit-com look like every other sit-com, every soap opera like every other soap opera and every reality show like every other god darn reality show.
Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.
I think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.
Until we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.
QuoteUntil we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones
Unfortunately, I think this period of history has already come and gone.
Quote from: big brother on Fri 17/11/2006 19:25:58
Yeah, I don't think we can hold up most modern TV shows as bastions of creativity or originality (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2004/09/why-i-hate-family-guy.html).
1. What the article is talking about is "I think Family Guy content=bad", but not the what the actual techniques of the show do. It's an opinion, and nothing really scientific about it. And although some may not like the content of the show, that still doesn't disregard that one must understand certain external media before watching the show to understand it.
2. The criticism against cutaway jokes and references is pretty disingenuious. Critics hail Arrested Development as one of the best shows ever and it has a huge number of cutaway references to a lot of things. Consider, for example, the numerous Happy Days references. They're not relevant to the plot, but they're damn funny. Gotta love Barry Zuckercorn about to comb his hair in front of the mirror like The Fonz.
3. Finally, I was about to criticise the article you posted as "just being some guy with blog", no scientific explanation or discussion as to what the show is actually doing. However, I thought about it a little more and I think that blog entry itself is proof of what Johnson is talking about. People are able to watch a show and provide their own analysis of the content using blogs today. The relationship between TV and Internet allow help the viewer become more than a passive viewer; they become someone who interacts with the culture.
QuoteJust because shows are graduating to cross-platform experiences doesn't somehow make more clever or better produced. To a large part, these shows are trying to integrate themselves with the internet and other interactive media to boost dying ratings. TV viewership (esp for the envied 18-25 year old male segment) has been dropping steadily over the years.
Bullshit! Who says TV viewership has been declining?
In 2000, the total number of television households in the US was 102.2 million. Now, it's 111.4 million.
In 2000, the total number of viewers was 259.9 million. Now, it's 283.5 million
In the last year alone, there was a 1.1 per cent increase in US Television Households.
There have even been significant increases across all demographics. In the 18-24 category, there was a 2 per cent increase.
This is all according to reports from Nielsen Media Research.
Just to reiterate what I said: TV viewership has been dropping steadily over the years?
BULLSHIT!
And if you look the last highest-rated TV show of the year (American Idol, also according the Neilson Media Reaserch), you'll see it has significantly increased viewership over the last few years. American Idol has more than doubled from an average of 12.5 million in the first season to 30.16 in the latest season. This is only in 5 years!
Now I'm not a huge Idol watcher. Reality TV/karaoke contest isn't my thing. But Idol is an example of a participatory/interactive media show. People can watch the show but not as a passive viewer; they make decisions about who they want to continue to the next round and vote via phone or SMS. They are interfacing with the culture. And I can see how this is more sophisicated compared to highest-rating TV shows from several decades ago like The $64,000 Question or The Beverly Hillbillies.
And what you've said about the internet doesn't prove that audiences aren't getting smarter. The internet allows a participatory medium, which is different from several years ago where TV viewers would remain as passive viewer to the culture. Now people are interacting with the culture.
The fact that TV networks are integrating online proves they're trying to cater to desires of an audience that wants intertextuality.
QuoteIf you look at modern cartoons, you will see a huge lack of production quality. Cheaper processes (that look cheaper, too) and totally ignorant dev execs are mostly to blame here. If you're interested, this is a good article:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=search&sval=RD01&article_no=2738
Great, a lack of production quality. Does that prove TV audiences aren't getting smarter? No, it only proves TV execs are thifty. But can you honestly say that the TV audience of The Simpsons era is dumber than the audience of the Flintstones era?
I fucking doubt it.
Quote from: Andail on Fri 17/11/2006 22:48:27
Before anything is allowed to come even close to a viewer, it has to be groomed, polished and worked over by the endless rows of experts who know exactly what the broad audience crave, until the whole thing reaches a stage where the professionals dictate what the audience wants and the audience goes along and think they want it too.
And how does this transition from catering to audience desire to forcing audience desire happen? Magic?
I still think the average audience member is smart enough to know what's not engaging. Otherwise the network demi-gods would use their sorcery to have us all watching Stacked with Pamela Anderson.
But let me give you an example where even experts can fail: Katie Couric.
Katie Couric's move from the US Today Show to the CBS News was a huge hype-up by network execs from CBS. People thought it was an excellent move.
However, in the short time she's been at CBS, her ratings initially peaked a short while and now have dropped below that of previous host Bob Schieffer. Not only that, today they're reporting more bad news for Couric: ratings for the Today Show have increaed since her departure.
It doesn't matter how much experts can polish. They can still lose an audience. They're not wizards. They can't cast "watch TV spells" on people. People can tune out and find something that engages them more.
QuoteI think when people discuss differences between cartoon sit-com X and Y, they don't realise how painfully similar these actually are, and that they both belong to a very narrow and crowded paradigm. Network pr, campaigns and commercialism only allow clones; the truly original stuff is too unsafe and may not appeal to the masses fast enough to yield profit.
What about 24? That's a very original concept and appeals to a mass audience.
The Simpsons when it first started was original and connected to a mass audience too.
The Daily Show?
Colbet Report?
And I'd still argue that a show like Dancing with the Stars has a higher level of sophistication than shows from 50 years ago.
QuoteUntil we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones; copies of a prototype whose sole purpose is higher ratings quickly.
But people are allowed to experiment. 24 is experimentation. Arrested Development is too. Lost is pretty unique too. The Sopranos. Six Feet Under.
What about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.
Even Keith Olbermann's Countdown is an alternative type of news show. And his ratings are increasing.
Matt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.
South Park anyone?
Even the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation. Who'da thought so many people would be into ballroom dancing?
Even Seinfeld, the highest-rated show for two years (1995 and 1998) was experimental.
I think we're living a fallacy that all TV shows are the same. Sure, King of Queens looks like According to Jim. Granted, there are heaps of CSIs and Law and Order shows. But I do think there's variety out there. Not every show is a sitcom about a chubby husband and his hot wife or a CSI: Law and Order Division.
There's a great story arc in Ricky Gervais's new show Extras where his character is forced to sell out by manufacturing a sitcom "When the Whistle Blows" for the BBC. "Is he having a laugh?! Is he having a laugh!?"
The satire involved in this storyline and the fact Gervais trusts the audience to get the joke of a "sell out show" within his own show demonstrates to me that TV culture has come a long way.
The fact that intellectuals flock to his version of the Office rather than the watered down American version. The fact that people watch the Office to begin with because its a fresh angle at comedy in a dumbed down and dying culture of sitcoms.
Audiences have more choices than ever. The fact that TV intellectuals even exist should tell you that. If you had nothing to watch but Fear Factor, and nothing to do on the computer or otherwise - but to watch Fear Factor. Most likely you would watch it not to be left out in the water cooler conversations the next day. You can piss and moan all you want about this show... or that show. But ultimately you are being served an alternative, a quite satisfying one whether the Daily Show or the Office or the Apprentice, and that's one thing audiences never had on the scale that we do.
I watched Cheers and Night Court and I don't remember hearing anybody bitching about it.
Aye, people have always bitched about TV rotting the brains. Even during periods where MASH or Seinfeld were popular shows.
Speaking of The Office, I think the American version has finally found its groove. When I first saw it, yeap, it looked like a misguided rehash of the UK version. Now, after a few seasons, I think it's become its own show and not an imitator anymore.
In debating which is better, the UK one will always win out. It was the genesis. However, I think they're now two completely different shows, as opposed to the French version which hasn't really diverted from the UK version.
I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best) and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.
You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).
You are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines"). Daily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL). Satire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).
I enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show. Keep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.
I believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.
Don't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.
Quote from: big brother on Sat 18/11/2006 06:47:24
I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best) and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.). You can read up on any agency and this seems to be the trend: TV is going the route of radio. It's still a bit early to be certain, but the dollars are already shifting. As of last year, the internet advertising arena is past saturation and interactivity is the keyword.
You might be a little deceived by increases in certain statistics. Keep in mind the the population in America is growing at a very rapid rate (legal and otherwise).
Wow, the total population is growing. Big fucking deal.
The fact is that the number of heads watching TVs are increasing, despite what happens to the total population. I mean, just because the population increases doesn't change that there are more people watching TV. Which was your original point.
Remember the part where you said TV viewership is dropping?
So the total population is increasing: so what? Big deal. You're still wrong in saying TV viewership is decreasing. And you said NOTHING about ad spending previously. In fact, ad spending has no impact on whether TV viewership is increasing or decreasing. It only determines the commercial viability of the medium. I mean, bringing that up seems to imply that the audience will increase if you pump more ad dollars into buying airtime to hawk shitty products. And audience numbers are dropping because advertisers are spending less on the medium.
Even if less money is spent on TV, the number of viewers has still increased. And lets say for example the average amount of advertising time is still the same but the costs are cheaper because they have to compete with the internet. There's an explanation that kicks your ad-spending rationale in the balls. Even though, like I said, it's totally irrelevant.
But my point is still correct and backed-up, TV viewership is increasing, not decreasing as you suggest.
In other words, you're wrong. Stop trying to make lame-ass validations, admit it, deal with it and move on.
As for the shift to interactivity, guess what: that's exactly what Johnson is talking about. People are no longer the passive viewers they once were. Our culture is making us more enlightened.
QuoteYou are correct, the Family Guy blog post is an opinion (like most of the internet). My main point was the show isn't original (read the part about Stewie and the referential "punchlines").
I did read the part about Stewie and the referential punchlines. So what? If all you got is some yahoo's blog post about how Family Guy isn't original thus = not funny, then you really need to try harder.
I once read some yahoo's blog post about how Pulp Fiction wasn't original. He had a point but it's still a brilliant movie.
QuoteDaily Show also has its moments, but I'd hesitate to call it original (think back to SNL).
Cause SNL's Weekend Update was a half-hour show that explored politics with humour and included special political guests and improvised interviews and later lead to a spin-off that mocked Bill O'Riley. Yeah, those two are exactly the same thing.
I don't deny that Weekend Update was first on the scene. But The Daily Show is something completely different from it now.
QuoteSatire has a history past Swift's "Modest Proposal" and it's just seen on a different medium here (as they say in the industry, a "cold" medium, even).
I'm not saying satire is an original invention by The Daily Show. I mean, if you're going to jump to that conclusion, you might as well say Camus' The Outsider wasn't an original novel because his existentialist work was influenced by Nietzsche. And all books written in English are unoriginal because English language was an invention created many centuries ago.
QuoteI enjoyed AD as much as the next critic, but to be honest, it was very poorly received by the general public (or at least the Neilson representative public) and was axed. When it comes to shows, TV Networks behave like businesses regardless of the "intelligence" or "intertextuality" of the show.
Buuuuut, that doesn't change the fact it was original. Or does it? Why don't you tell me because that's why I brought it up. You know, cause Andail said there's no room for experimentation and I listed that out of a number of examples.
Like 24, which you ignored.
Even though it was a commercial success.
And an original attempt at experimentation.
QuoteKeep in mind that Family Guy was also axed back in the day.
And brought back to life because people bought a shitload of Family Guy DVDs. Likewise, Futurama is coming back. Your point was?
QuoteI believe the American version of "The Office" makes the sucessful multi-vehicle leap because of its content. It's easy for advertisers, since it has a distinctive style of humor, a certain setting, and a fairly specific audience. The mobisode and downloadable content (podcasts, etc.) relate perfectly to the technology adoption interval of its audience.
Which is Johnson's point.
QuoteDon't forget that Steven Johnson is primarily trying to make a living, just like the rest of us. No need to deify his means.
Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself "big brother".
Let me put it this way: Johnson wrote a book with good research to back it up, has written several other science books, has a background in science writing (particularly neuroscience) and works as a writer for the Univeristy of New York.
You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.
No offense to you, but who do you think I'm going to listen to?
If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.
About something you mentioned before Daniel... "King of Queens" and "According to Jim" are being aired here, Jim just before Doug... Funny coincidence. :)
Quote from: big brother on Sat 18/11/2006 06:47:24
I'll dig up numbers for you if you want, but I've read Adage for the past year (a year after this book was published, and based on data from the year before at best) and been in fairly good contact with the industry that fuels TV (Hell, I got a bachelor's degree in it). Ad spending (particularly upfront buys) on TV space has declined due to a number of factors (accountability, availability of other media, etc.).
"the industry that fuels TV"
I don't know about anybody else but I resent advertising.Ã, I took two college courses in advertisiing and the best excuse my professors had for why we need advertising people was "who else is going to do it?"
Who else is going to saturate my life with repetitive, annoying ads?Ã, Ã, I think advertising sucks balls, and if less ads are being sold on TV - thank the lord!
We've gotten to a point where TV and the internet are soon going to merge.Ã, Ã, Companies like HP and Sony are all working on home entertainment systems that combine TV with the internet and I'm hoping the future of TV lies in subscriptions like HBO and services you renew online.
I can't stand commercials, and likewise think if anything lasts of advertising - that we get to a point of seemless product placement.Ã, Ã, Ã, Advertisers are the devil.
DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.
Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.
Quote
You, on the other hand, have some guy who doesn't like Family Guy writing in his blog, and an argument that seems to say our culture is shifting to an interactive and intertextual medium (the internet) but it's not the interactivity and intertextuality that's engaging people, which is a pretty conflicting point-of-view.
Where did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?
Quote
If you really want to change my mind on this, okay, then convince me. Give me some tangible proof that our popular culture (including TV, music, video games, the internet) is rotting our brains.
When did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.
Evenwolf, I agree that a majority of modern advertising is intrusive and unwanted. But keep in mind that internationally, it's a ~$45 billion dollar industry worldwide (roughly triple that of video games, which in turn are bigger than Hollywood, etc.). These ad dollars allow you to watch a TV show for free, and help keep the costs of public transportation, newspapers, and magazines down. Without advertising, many of your favorite sites and search engines (Yahoo, Google, Youtube, etc.) would not exist. Yes, it can be annoying, but at least for me, that's a price I'm willing to pay for the services I enjoy. Furthermore, if marketers decide that TV is no longer a worthwhile investment (high media space and production costs per GRP), they will put their budget into other media. With less money available, TV has to host MORE ads per segment to maintain show budgets, etc. It's the same slippery slope that transformed radio in past years.
Here are some quotes from Adage articles that reinforce some of my statements about the evolution TV is facing. I pulled most of these from cover articles, since it would be fairly time-consuming to review a year's worth of these trade journals. Note that all these articles are more recent than Steven's book (and the data within).
March 13, 2006 (Digital Buyers Step Into the Upfront Rumble)
"It looks like, for the most part, these video-media explorations are being taken out of the TV pot, rather than separate digital budgets. 'There's been a slow migration of broadcast dollars into video alternatives that will continue,' said Mr. Donchin (Director National Broadcast Buyer at Carat)."
March 27, 2006 (Over 75% of Advertisers Feel TV is Less Effective)
"Advertisers are suffering a crisis of confidence, according to a survey released by the Association of National Advertisers and Forrester Research as part of the ANA's TV Ad Forum. The survey revealed that 78% of the 133 national advertisers polled felt their traditional television spots had become less effective over the past two years. On top of that, 60% said that once DVR penetration hit 30 million, they'd cut spending on TV advertising. DVR penetration hovers around 10 million and is projected to reach 30 million within three years."
August 7, 2006 (TV Selling Power Slammed)
Stats from McKinsey & Co.'s report on media proliferation to Fortune 100 clients:
40% increase on ad spending on broadcast TV over the past 10 years as viewers have dropped by almost 50%
65% of consumers feel they're bombarded with too much advertising
54% avoid buying products that overwhelm them with too much advertising
600% amount more time spent online by teens compared to typical adults
44% of purchasing decisions at one telecom company were influenced by costumer interaction rather than advertising
Sigh. I've read this topic with interest, even thought about buying that book... now I come home, and here it is again.
Big Brother has made a statement based on facts. One can think different, some may think these facts are far-fetched, some may agree, some may shrug and say, yeah sure. But why must someone *bang* jump in with swearwords and personal agression? I've seen it sometimes now, and heavens, it always spoils the mood. What are the forum rules good for?
Sorry, just had to say this.
Quote from: big brother on Sun 19/11/2006 00:18:53
DG, I really don't understand your venom. If you disagree with something I wrote, why the ad hominem attacks? If you want to hold a discussion like civilized humans and explore different viewpoints, we can. If you want to fight, the forums aren't the place, that's what parking lots are for.
Just because I'm not supporting my statements doesn't give you the grounds to shriek BULLSHIT whenever I type a sentence. You're way out of line here.
Christ, are you really that sensitive?
What "ad hominem" attacks? I never once attacked your character. Probably the worst thing I said was, "Haha, this coming from someone who calls himself 'big brother'." If you're so offended by that, get a sense of humour, mate.
I mean, do you really think I'm saying this stuff because I hate you or something? Because I'm not. I don't hate you or anyone here. But it does disappoint me when people make baseless claims. And not just baseless claims, but claims that turn out to be false. And then trying to validate them when there's no basis for validation. That's just sheer insanity.
Yeah, I call bullshit on what you said because it IS bullshit. You tried to tell me that TV viewership was going down when the reverse was happening. I'm all for intelligent and civilised debate, but get your facts straight first. Otherwise, I'm just going to think, "Jesus, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about."
QuoteWhere did I say that interactivity doesn't engage people?
You tried to say that "intertextuality" doesn't matter to an audience when later you said it does. Intertextuality functions as a form of interactive engagement. Not only that, you're trying to say there's a shift away from TV even though TV is becoming more interactive.
Something doesn't smell right in what you're saying. Maybe you can offer a further explanation?
QuoteWhen did I say that we're getting dumber? But since you asked,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_37/b4000070.htm
might be worth checking out.
That doesn't prove our cognitive ability is declining. That just proves online video games can be an unhealthy addiction. Using that article to prove we're getting dumber is like trying to say chocolate isn't delicious because it's fattening.
Quote from: Ghost on Sun 19/11/2006 02:12:10
Big Brother has made a statement based on facts.
No, he didn't. He assumed. And he based his assumption on something that had no relevance.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 17/11/2006 04:53:1750 years ago there wasn't a show like The Daily Show. It's an advanced form of news show ....
... But you've just brought a conflict in your statements. You said news satire requires an understanding of the subject being satirised but it doesn't encourage study of the subject. How else does one "get" the Daily Show? THere has to be some encouragement to follow regular news if you're going to follow The Daily Show.
I don't disagree that the Daily Show is entertaining television, and not without value. But ....
- I'd suggest that the Daily Show is
not mainstream television. First, it's carried on the Comedy Channel, a niche channel high up in the dial of cable channels. I suspect that if it had been left up to major networks, we would have never seen a show like the Daily Show. Second, I'd be interested in seeing it's viewer numbers and demographics compared to a normal news program. I don't doubt that it's popular, especially by the standards of a niche cable channel, but I bet that many, many more people watch only your typical network news, or that the audience tuning into the Daily Show is markedly different from that watching your average news show. Third, the format of the Daily Show remains unique among the countless number of network news shows and the half-dozen or so cable channels dedicated solely to news. Hardly evidence that this style of show has been adopted by the mainstream. In short: of those people tuning in to their evening news, the vast majority are still watching the same drivel that the networks have always pumped out. Those tuning into the Daily Show are probably more advanced viewers to begin with. I'd probably place this show into the category of what's available out there if you get past prime-time, network television.
- As for my conflicting statements, I see the Daily Show as satirizing other news programs, not the news itself. Sure it pokes fun at newsworthy items, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_show#The_Daily_Show_as_a_.22news_source.22) mentions some studies that suggest that the Daily Show actually contains as much factual information as normal news programs. The fact that one can stay just as informed from watching a comedy show as they can from watching mainstream news programs is hardly an endorsement of the intelligence of mainstream television. And I'll attest to it: the vast majority of the content in the evening news shows and on the cable news networks is simply drivel. That why I stay informed through alternate mediums (print and the internet).
QuoteThese are progressive evolutions of shows. You can't tell me that a soap opera or Dallas are as complex as something like 24.
Honestly, I don't know. How does one quantitatively compare television from 10, 20, 50 years ago to today? The world has changed dramatically in the past 50 years - heck, in the past 10 years - and the growth of technology has brought it all into our living rooms and exposed us to it like never before. The Vietnam War was the first "televised" war, and we've since progressed to "embedded" news crews with nightvision cameras broadcasting live feeds from tanks as they roll through the battlefield. The internet has largely eliminated national boundaries, giving people exposure and access to information, viewpoints, and culture from all over the world. Cultural views and acceptance of women, minorities, and people of alternative sexual preference have changed dramatically. We can send email from our mobile phones while standing in line for coffee, or watch DVD movies in our car, or check our stocks and trade them during our lunch hour. None of this was fathomable, what, even 15 or 20 years ago?
If you can somehow factor out this baseline progression of society, would we actually find today's television more intelligent? The original Star Trek series was quite innovative for it's time, and (ironically) not very successful. But now that ideas like warp drives, teleporation ("beaming"), mobile flip-top communications devices, and mixed-gender multi-racial casts are accepted as normal, it seems rather silly now. But really, if you stop and look, pretty much every popular sci-fi show on TV today is basically a derivative of this 40-year old program.
How about Charlie's Angels, which at the time was a big step for woman's lib in casting capable, competent woman as lead characters? Today it seems rather silly and sexist (though still better than those ridiculous movies :)). Maybe the closest comparison today is a show like Will & Grace, which was innovative in having a main character that was gay, and has subsequtnly led to an explosion of television shows with prominent gay characters. Personally, what little of the show I watched seemed rather silly to me (cue canned laugh track), and I find that the mainstream's portrayal of gay men in general only entrenches the sterotype of them as being feminine and "swishy." I guess it's better than nothing, but let's not kid ourselves and say that the audience is being challenged with the idea of homosexuality.
Quote
Quote from: EagerMindI don't think the explosion of shows like this is evidence of the studios' commitment to boost complexity and intelligence ... I think it means the studio wants me to go buy the previous seasons to get caught up on the story.
But that's my point: they have to engage you with such a show using certain methods. Not only that, you can't just limt your viewing of this theory to just one show, but a complex web of media. Shows these day are more connected than they were many decades ago.
I really don't get this argument. To me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.
Lost isn't quite as bad, but in a similar vein. Take the episode I saw: a resue mission. How is it more complex if I have to see the previous episode to know who they're trying to rescue (and the episode before that to know who kidnapped him and why, etc. etc.)? And really, does it matter, or is just a ridiculously complex MacGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macguffin)? What are the issues in the episode itself? The guy leading the rescue feels compelled to atone for his past sins. OK, got it. Pretty typical stuff. But it sure is tempting to go buy all the previous episodes on DVD and find out what the back story is, especially given that it
is entertaining television. I'll admit, it's damn good marketing.
An example of someone getting it right? The Blair Witch Project. The website and the TV special, which detailed the "recovery" of the video tapes and developed the mythology of the Blair Witch, contributed context and understanding to the movie, and in portraying these events as real, also heightened the atmosphere and scariness of it. But while they may have enhanced the movie-watching experience, at the same time they were completely periphery to it and weren't required to appreciate or understand it, nor did they require me to spend a bunch of money on a slew of promotional junk. But then again, Blair Witch wasn't a mainstream movie production, and it's sequel - which was - was a bust.
QuoteQuote from: EagerMindI think the complexity within an individual show is much more important than a series-wide storyline ... look at shows like West Wing (well, when the original writers were on it) and Law & Order.
But this is another good example. Not many TV dramas of the past were able to explore political issues. I can't think of another show that did the same as The West Wing.
But you just said it yourself: no other show has done what West Wing did. These two shows clearly stand out as quality prime-time programming and as such are in a select minority. Law & Order is one of the longest-running shows on TV, and all the shows derived from it - Cold Case, CSI, Without A Trace, it's own spin-offs (Criminal Intent, Special Victims Unit), and I'm sure others that I can't think of - are quite clearly inferior, often without any real substance, and incredibly popular. And I'm sure if we looked at shows no longer on TV, we'd come up with a much bigger list of derivative, formulaic TV shows that haven't survived.
QuoteBut that's the issue. Forget the technology. The visual stimulus has become harder to follow. Even with a live feed from a reporter in mid-battle still has a scroll bar and headlines while the reporter talks. You'll notice they don't suddenly cut to a full screen view.
You're right, the visual stimulus is harder - there's more crap on the screen blinking, scrolling, flashing at me - but it doesn't mean I'm processing any more of it. Actually, I'm suggesting that it might even be worse than this. Instead of being able to focus on and process the one or two things of interest to me, once some point of "overload" is reached, I may not be processing any of the information as well as if there was just one or two things on the screen.
It's like looking at a Christmas tree. Yes, you can see the glittery, sparkly, flashing prettiness of it in its entirety, but you're certainly not processing every little light and decoration. Try counting and identifying the individual decorations and lights, or even making out the physical shape of the tree itself! Not so easy (or even possible) until I reduce the flow of information and show you the tree and each light and decoration individually. More isn't necessarily better - and in fact, it can be worse!
QuoteThe army relies on a lot of conditioning techniques and repetition to improve performance on a single task. So, they use computer technology to filter external info for pilots to help them be better pilots. Great. But how does that help with other problm-solving tasks. How does that allow them to become creative thinkers and enhance their options at solving a problem?
It just seems to be: focus on this, become a better pilot, repeat. That doesn't represent intelligence. I believe intelligence relates to free thinking and opening your mind to possibilities.
It's like a guy who uses a hammer, and is so focused on using a hammer, that he becomes the best hammer-guy in the world. But what happens when he comes accross a screw. He's fucked!
Actually, I can't believe you're comparing flying a jet plane to hammering in a nail! They're not at all comparable! Forget that I mentioned the military - I only mentioned them because, as far as I know, they're the first to take a serious look at this (I don't have the article available to reference). But I'm certainly not talking about some sort of brain-washing or conditioning exercise. Really, what I'm talking about is applicable to any task requiring one to process an large amount of information.
Operating a modern jet requires processing a huge amount of information, drawing conclusions based on it, and responding accordingly. Have you seen the cockpit of an airplane? Just a mass of instruments and controls. Yes, I'm sure the pilot can tell you what every one of them does and what their importance is, but are you honestly going to tell me that he's capable of monitoring all of those at the same time while flying the plane? Now let's throw in some sort of complexity, like landing the plane, or (going back to a military example) dodging a missile. All that information isn't necessarily useful, and in fact I'm sure a large portion of it is extraneous and nothing more than a distraction given the specific task at hand.
What I'm talking about is an "intelligent" system that temporarily filters out the extraneous, non-useful information until you've resolved the situation. Maybe nothing more than a dynamic display that puts only the instrumentation of concern on screen, or places the instrumentation of concern front and center while moving the rest to a secondary, periphery position. The studies that have been done suggest that if you can remove the extraneous stuff, even just temporarily, and allow the person to focus on and process only information relevant to a specific task, performance improves.
Let's go to a much simpler example: the growth in complexity of your average, ordinary VCR/TV/DVD remote. Yes, those mass of buttons allows you to program a countless number of cool, new features ... but how many people actually figure out how to use them? Moreover, how many people can't even figure out how set the clock on their machines anymore? Or how many times have you seen somebody hunt for the volume button or the channel changer button? Yes, with these new-fangled remotes that give us a wealth of information and unprecedented control over our machines, it actually takes us longer to figure out which button to press to change the channel!
Again I say, all that additional information and visual complexity on the screen isn't evidence of our ability to process information any better - in fact it may be hurting us!
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 18/11/2006 00:53:44But people are allowed to experiment.
I'd be a little careful here. We're influenced by survivorship bias. Of course the shows that survive are popular, and generally stand out as better-quality, more innovative programming (though not always). But let's not forget that something like 70%-80% of all shows never even last half the season. I think what we're seeing is something more along the lines of throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.
Quote24 is experimentation ... Lost is pretty unique too.
I'll accept that 24 is novel, but I'd suggest that Lost is cashing in on the 24 formula, with it's a continuing storyline spanning the entire season (and longer).
QuoteThe Sopranos. Six Feet Under.
I'd be careful about lumping HBO series and their ilk into the same category as network television. Channels like this already have a paying audience (something the networks don't have) happily tuning in to watch movies, and shows like Soprano and Six Feet Under are pretty much sauce for the goose. They have the ability to experiment more than the networks, since not everything is riding on having a successful primetime hit. Furthermore, they don't have to answer to advertisers and the FCC, allowing them to tackle subject matter (and include violence and language) that the networks can't touch.
QuoteWhat about The Daily Show? Colbert Report? They're experiments in comedy combined with news.
I already discussed the Daily Show as being outside the mainstream. The Colbert Report is a spin-off of the already-successful Daily Show, not an experiment in my book. Stick with the lady that brought you, as they say.
QuoteMatt Groening was allowed to experiment with The Simpsons.
Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed. I find that shows like this tend to succeed despite the mascinations of the networks. Many critically-acclaimed shows end up dying because the networks, convinced they won't succeed, mess with their scheduling to ensure they won't (anyone remember Freaks and Geeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freaks_and_geeks), or Firefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_%28TV_series%29)?).
Also, let's not forget that the Simpsons was spun off from the Emmy-award winning Tracy Ullman show, hardly a risk from that perspective. And while the Simpons itself may have been an experiment, it has since created the "primetime adult cartoon" formula and led to the subsequent growth of primetime cartoon shows, like for example ...
QuoteSouth Park anyone?
Which, like the Daily Show, has succeeded on a niche cable channel. This show wasn't a complete shot in the dark either, as it was inspired by the underground popularity of the Spirit of Christmas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Christmas) (which also apparently won an LA Film Critics award).
QuoteEven the highest-rated show in the US, Dancing with the Stars, is something of an experimentation.
You mean, yet another reality TV show? :P
Take a look at all the cable channels that focus on popular television (which excludes specialty/educational channels like Animal Planet, History Channel, National Geographic, etc). I'd say that 95% or more of their content is either reruns of popular network shows or frequently-run, ratings-friendly movies. The TNT network basically shows Law & Order reruns every night from 5-10pm. Bravo is one reality show after another. Where's the experimentation? Battlestar Galactica (itself a remake, though somewhat innovative in its production), the Daily Show, South Park ... just a handful of "challenging" non-network shows from dozens and dozens of channels!
With few exceptions, our programming continues to be fed to us by the networks (or the hollywood studios, or the big-name game companies, etc.) using their marketing numbers to push their formulaic shows or looking at their "surprise success" stories (reality TV, primetime cartoons, etc.) to develop new formulas and push an endless number of derivatives.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 17/11/2006 23:44:39QuoteUntil we reach a stage where people are allowed to freely experiment, to create stuff because they think there is something lacking out there (and not because they know they can make it fit for a fair amount of viewers) we will only see clones
Unfortunately, I think this period of history has already come and gone.
I'm surprised you feel this way. I think that as the idea of using the internet to disseminate content at low cost catches on, we're actually entering an age where anybody can create and distribute stuff regardless of what kind of audience they expect to have. Look how podcasts and video blogs (vblogs?) have taken off. Some of them are as good as any radio show or public television show, content-wise they might be better, and some of them cover topics that networks wouldn't touch in a million years. Go and explore, I'm sure you'll be surprised at what you find.
Instead of replying to your massive TL;DR piece of text, I'm just going to reply to one part that negates a lot of what you said and proves that you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.
Quote from: EagerMind on Thu 23/11/2006 09:27:47
Generally against the desires of the studio, or with their deep reservations, if the commentaries on the DVDs are to be believed.
Bingo.
DVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks. Now follow what the writers, directors, producers and actors are saying (how they describe each scene, each reference, etc, etc) and think about how you piece all this information together.
I haven't listened to the commentaries for The Simpsons, but I've listened to commentaries for Futurama. If that's anything to go by, there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.
Now, you might be thinking, "So I know a lot about The Simpsons. Big deal!" And it's similar to what you said here:
QuoteTo me, it's like saying the new Star Wars movies are more complex because of the glut of promotional marketing and spin-off material surrounding it. Sure, I could go out and read the books, watch the cartoons, play the video games, buy the action figures, and build the Lego sets that explain who all the new, random, previously-unintroduced characters in Episode III are. But why? Even if I do know who General Greivous is, where he came from, which Jedi he killed, and his past relationship with Anakin and Obi-Wan, it's all completely inconsequential and meaningless with respect to the plot. The film is 45 minutes of movie and 2 hours of promotional tie-ins. It's a completely substanceless attempt to make me go by all the spin-offs and put more of my money into Lucas's pocket.
But this is where you miss the point. And I've said this many times, but I'll repeat it once more.
It's not the content that's making us intelligent.
It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent.
The fact that you can understand how the complex world of Springfield works demonstrates your strong ability to piece information together. Likewise, my understanding of how everything fits together in Futurama. Likewise, the Star Wars geek who knows what General Grevious had for breakfast the day he killed such-and-such jedi.
The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.
Quotet's not the content that's making us intelligent.
It's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent.
It's difficult to read this thread fully, but is anyone disagreeing with this? I find it a very reasonable assumption. Faster minds for faster worlds. Doesn't mean better worlds, doesn't mean better (content-wise) minds. Just faster.
Helm, I don't even know where that quote came from becuase of the massive, ridiculous amount of referencing in this thread.
I do know that some similar quotes were made and a few individuals piped in with rhetoric such as "people do not indeed have faster minds, or if they did they were no better, because now their attention spans are so low etc."
Its such a weird vibe I get from people reacting to this book. I am glad I brought up my enthusiasm for the concept on an internet forum rather than in a party or a classroom. I wouldn't have been prepared for such immediate presumptions and criticisms.
It's interesting you mention how people react to the book. For me, I went from thinking all TV is shithouse to reading the book and deciding, "Wait, it's not as bad as people think."
No, no- let me clarify.
I think the same as you.Ã, Ã, I meant People reacting to the nature of the book.
They don't have to read it to know exactly what it says!
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 23/11/2006 11:55:35you are a product of a culture where TV can make you a more intelligent person.
I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.
QuoteDVD commentaries. Perfect example of how multiple threads are being tracked. Firstly, The Simpsons itself is show that requires a lot of intertextuality to understand it. But secondly, you're following that plus the DVD commentary tracks .... there's a lot of infomation being presented when you're watching both show and commentary track. If I were to draw a chart showing how all this information is pieced together, if would be very fucking complex. But somehow I'm able to follow it all.
I don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show
and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.
QuoteIt's our ability to see the links and to understand the relationships between entities that's making us intelligent .... The additional content seems inconsequential to the plot but that's besides the point. It's not additional content or the plot that's aiding our intelligence. It's what the additional content and plot does: they help us relate things together and they train us to form these links faster.
I see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."
Quote from: EagerMind on Fri 24/11/2006 19:04:05
I've never claimed that television can't make you more intelligent, just that you've got to get away from the mainstream, market-driven stuff and seek out the quality content.
That's fair enough, but I still think that the mainstream TV has improved over the last 50 years, thus improving our intelligence.
QuoteI don't really see how this disproves my previous arguments. I see the commentary tracks as replacing a layer of information, not adding a new one (i.e, visual stays the same, audio is replaced). You're still processing just as much information listening to the commentary track as you are listening the dialogue track. You're not really watching the show and the commentary, it's either one or the other. If there are three different audio tracks, you just can't turn on all the streams and watch the show once, you'll have to watch it three times to get all the information. Sure, you end up with more information in the end, but you'll have to invest more time and effort in the process.
But you have to have an understanding of plot prior to listening to commentaries or else it's harder to link everything together. The fact that you're relating the two audio streams together, using the visuals as part of that link, is what's key.
QuoteI see what you're saying, but do you really think this is what mainstream media is doing? Sure, the geek who buys all the Star Wars spin-offs is piecing together a picture of the whole Star Wars "universe" from variety of different media, but it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I mean, any knucklehead can buy anything with a Star Wars logo on it, each with it's clearly-defined place within the continuity, and get the picture. That's a far step from collecting pieces of disparate information, somehow linking them together, and forming some sort of conclusion. It's not even putting a round peg in a round hole, it's picking up a round peg with a label that says "put me in the round the hole."
I don't deny consumerism can go overboard sometimes, but I do think there are many examples of how such can help intelligence. Consider Pokemon. Before I thought it was an easy marketing ploy. But I've never actually played Pokemon. There are kids who know the names of every single Pokemon as well as all their strengths, weaknesses, and history. This is a pretty complex game compared to something from my childhood, like Hungry Hungry Hippos.